Richard Dawkins Led Many to God With 'God Delusion' Book, Christian Minister Says

One of Scotland's leading Christian thinkers has said that atheist professor Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion book has actually paved the way for the Church to share its message about God, because it drew millions of people around the world to the debate on God and the Bible.

"Richard Dawkins has done us a big favor," said the Rev David Robertson, a minister from the Free Church of Scotland, ahead of the Faclan Book Festival on the Isle of Lewis later this week ,where both he and Dawkins will be speaking about spiritual literature.

"A book about God and the Bible has become a bestseller and as a result has opened up a discussion that many people thought was over," Robertson added to the Stornoway Gazette....

Doris wrote:John called him an "eminent and highly respected Calvinistic Baptist." How so?How can a "put the cart before the horse" man = good theologian?!

A reasonable question. I would suppose he be eminent and highly respected more by those who agree with him, than those who don't, though this wouldn't necessarily make him a good theologian. Stuff like that happens.

John UK wrote:Don't forget that God is outside of time, and we are creatures of time. He can see the full picture completed, we see it as it is being painted.

Yes John, since God operates in eternity where no point is further from any other point in His mind; when He decrees something it is already an accomplished fact. But, His decisions will be played out in our dynamic time. So, when I came to Christ; that event happened before the foundation of the world in God's mind, but it had to be played out in our dynamic time. He created time and the seasons for a purpose. Open Theism and things like that have great talking points, but they detract from God's sovereignty and attempt to say that mankind can themselves control the outcome of things or guide our heavenly Father in His decision making (manipulate?), instead of God being in total control. But, open theism and middle knowledge are very tricky and they can present a case (erroneous) for their cause. All arminians by necessity must adhere to open theism. Anyway, your point is deep, but true. If God tells me if I do something He will bless me and if I don't He won't bless me, then I simply believe Him and leave the mystery to Him, but not detract from His sovereignty.

John UK wrote:1. No.2. No.I would certainly not wish to squeeze this text into a mould of my own making, just to make sure the mould stays intact.But hey, if you want to give me the mould-preserver explanation, feel free to do so. You know you're itching to show me. If it's the John Gill version, I already read that about 30 years ago. And then....Romans 10:21 KJV21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

John for Jesus wrote:If the elect are those who were preordained to have faith and all of God's elect were placed in Christ at the cross, then are you saying there are unbelievers who are already in Christ at conception and born saved?

Don't forget that God is outside of time, and we are creatures of time. He can see the full picture completed, we see it as it is being painted.

Doris wrote:Well John, have you got an answer for this conundrum yet? Or have you concluded that the verse makes no sense and should therefore be ignored?

1. No.2. No.

I would certainly not wish to squeeze this text into a mould of my own making, just to make sure the mould stays intact.

But hey, if you want to give me the mould-preserver explanation, feel free to do so. You know you're itching to show me.

If it's the John Gill version, I already read that about 30 years ago.

And then....

Romans 10:21 KJV21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Mike wrote:Not pleased my foot. Displeasure is a response. The preferred theology doesn't allow for God to be responding to what men choose to do.

As always, excellent point Mike!

John UK wrote:It's a very fair point Mike, and I have no immediate answer to it. But I will certainly prayerfully consider it.The same thing would also apply to the arminist position, which has conditional election. If God foresaw faith in a man, and knew the exact moment, why would it say he was patient/longsuffering?

Well John, have you got an answer for this conundrum yet? Or have you concluded that the verse makes no sense and should therefore be ignored?

John UK wrote:It is also perfectly accurate to say that when Christ paid the redemption price in AD33, all of God's elect were redeemed and placed "in Christ". The time factor becomes irrelevant. It is done. When our Lord Jesus Christ said, "It is finished!" it was all finished and completed and definite.

If the elect are those who were preordained to have faith and all of God's elect were placed in Christ at the cross, then are you saying there are unbelievers who are already in Christ at conception and born saved?

John UK wrote:It is perfectly accurate to say that "when Christ died, I died".It is also perfectly accurate to say that when Christ paid the redemption price in AD33, all of God's elect were redeemed and placed "in Christ". The time factor becomes irrelevant. It is done. When our Lord Jesus Christ said, "It is finished!" it was all finished and completed and definite."Christ in you, the hope of glory" does indeed produce a new creature, where all things old are gone; and it is Christ who accomplishes this, his calling being effectual. In this he shows his great love, which will not let one of God's chosen ones be lost.But the natural man is at enmity with God, and "there are none that seeketh after God" because of this. It takes a mighty work of the Spirit to reverse this.

I agree with some of your statement except for the idea of unbelievers being the elect and of an effectual calling.

T for truth wrote:Lies!!You have ripped verse 20 out of context to fabricate your ineffectual and feeble god idol. The reason why you Arminians do this is to promote the evil sinner above your god. It is Satan's subtle temptation to arrogant man to believe he can save himself.Verse 20 is part of Paul's description of his ministry and his complete weak vessel humility, giving ALL the glory to our sovereign God, - NOT the means of bringing God down to human attributes and thus anthropomorphizing God.The earlier verse's 10 and 11 refer to the judgment and terror of the Lord - NOT some cringing incompetent god who must grovel for souls, such as the Arminians teach.What you bring to the Bible is the sinful presumption of arrogance that God cannot save without your cooperation. This is unBiblical fallacy.

An ambassador is someone sent out by a ruler (Jesus) or a nation (the kingdom of God) to represent them. So God was pleading to the people through Paul and Paul was imploring them on God's behalf (2 Cor 5:20). God's word does not lie.Though verses 10-11 talk of judgement, it doesn't erase the fact that 2 Peter 3:9 says God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Frank wrote:Yes, my brother, I try to use all of scripture and if something doesn't give glory to our Lord and Savior, then it raises a red flag. Today is my birthday and my wife is taking me out to dinner!

1. That's it bro.2. Have great time together. And happy birthday.3. Thanks for your concern and prayers.

John UK wrote:Brother Frank, you are absolutely correct! And it is just as important as you say it is. Sure, it can take a very long time for it all to sink in, and even then we will know only the half of it. But there is certainly no truck between the two theologies, despite similarities.Pauvre Presby is still searching through his documents for the answer to the question. But whole Bible men like yourself have no such problem, being taught by the Spirit through his word to discern the truth and stand for it.

Thanks brother! As usual you and I agree on the major issues. I hope you are doing well and I am still praying for your physical concerns and for your local fellowship. I seldom do research on theological issue, so I want to thank you for the links you have been providing; I do read them through, maybe not thoroughly. You and Lurker have given me things to think about; that is always good. I always say if I can't defend an issue, then I at least should say I'm not sure about an issue. You do that as well.

Yes, my brother, I try to use all of scripture and if something doesn't give glory to our Lord and Savior, then it raises a red flag.

Frank wrote:Brother, I will take the quiz. The correct doctrine is monergism, but like you said, not all will realize that in the beginning; I know I didn't. When we are on our knees before a holy God, we will only plead His mercy and forgiveness and will not see good in ourselves. The same will happen at the judgment; we will only see God's mercy, sovereignty and His election of a poor sinner. Christ alone will be glorified and He will not share His glory with those who belong to Him.Like you said, sometimes it takes time for correct doctrine to sink in, but we should fight against anything that detracts from the grace of God. How did I do on the quiz?

Brother Frank, you are absolutely correct!

And it is just as important as you say it is. Sure, it can take a very long time for it all to sink in, and even then we will know only the half of it. But there is certainly no truck between the two theologies, despite similarities.

Pauvre Presby is still searching through his documents for the answer to the question. But whole Bible men like yourself have no such problem, being taught by the Spirit through his word to discern the truth and stand for it.

Brother, I will take the quiz. The correct doctrine is monergism, but like you said, not all will realize that in the beginning; I know I didn't. When we are on our knees before a holy God, we will only plead His mercy and forgiveness and will not see good in ourselves. The same will happen at the judgment; we will only see God's mercy, sovereignty and His election of a poor sinner. Christ alone will be glorified and He will not share His glory with those who belong to Him.

Like you said, sometimes it takes time for correct doctrine to sink in, but we should fight against anything that detracts from the grace of God.

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism. or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true;CHS

"The divine sovereignty, moreover, has a manifoldness of aspect or expression, and the aspect with which we are now mainly concerned is that the sovereignty of God as absolute authority demands total subjection to His will in every sphere and activity of life. If God should require less it would be a denial of Himself and it is His glory that this one thing He cannot do. When man yields less than total subjection this is a denial of Godâ€™s supreme Lordship, repudiation of His authority, and contradiction of His glory. It comes, then, to this that the correlate in man of sovereignty in God is subjection wholehearted, undeviating and unceasing. It is the irreducible obligation of all men in all departments of life to bring the whole of life into subservience to the totality of Godâ€™s revealed will" (John Murray)

still searching wrote:Question, "When can man be considered quote 'responsible' within Christianity in spiritual discernment?"

Ah, paddling in the shallows again. And I never claimed that, did I?

In that, ye do greatly err.

What was your answer to the Hendrix article? And then I can tell you if your are correct.

p.s. Note:

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.